Anto Augustine's mother-in-law seeks bail amidst Excise dept search for her in Abkari case

Kalpetta: When the Excise Department has intensified its efforts to trace Lilly Jose, the mother-in-law of Anto Augustine, in connection with an Abkari case involving the alleged seizure of 64.844 litres of liquor and alcoholic preparations from his house at Vazhavatta, Lilly Jose and her husband, K J Jose, were missing from Koliyadi near Sulthan Bathery.

Lilly Jose, who is listed as the owner of the property, as per the documents submitted by Anto Augustine at the High Court, from which the liquor was allegedly seized, has now approached the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, seeking anticipatory bail, amid an ongoing investigation by the Excise Department into the ownership and possession of the property.

Anto Augustine was arrested in the Abkari case and produced before the court. During the proceedings, he maintained that he was not the owner of the house and had no connection with the alleged seizure. He told the court that the property belonged to Lilly Jose.

Interestingly, following Augustine's arrest, Lilly Jose and her husband, KJ Jose, the Managing Director of Reporter Broadcasting Company, were reported to have gone missing from their residence at Koliyadi, according to Excise officials.

Officials from the Excise Department made two attempts to serve a notice on Lilly Jose directing her to appear before the Deputy Excise Commissioner's office in Kalpetta. However, both attempts allegedly failed. Excise officials claimed that on both occasions, by the time they received information about the family's arrival at the house and reached the premises, the couple had already left.

The department has reportedly stepped up surveillance in the area as part of its efforts to locate Lilly Jose. According to Excise sources, personnel in plain clothes have been deployed in the locality, while information is also being collected through local sources. Officials claimed that the family visits the property only rarely and that several of the visits reported after Augustine's arrest took place at night.

The ownership of the property has emerged as a crucial aspect of the investigation. During the hearing of Augustine's bail plea before the Kerala High Court, his counsel produced an SBI sale certificate to contend that the property was no longer owned or possessed by Augustine.

According to the sale certificate, the property had earlier been mortgaged by Anto Augustine to the State Bank of India as security for a financial facility extended to M/s Asian Motors, Pathadipalam, Edappally, Kochi. Following default in repayment, the bank initiated recovery proceedings against the secured asset and subsequently put the property up for e-auction.

The auction was conducted on June 30, 2022, and the property was sold to Lilly Jose for ₹2,00,10,000. The sale certificate records the transfer of the property and possession to the purchaser.

However, Excise officials are questioning whether the transaction and subsequent ownership reflected in the documents correspond to the actual possession and control of the property. The department is examining records and other evidence as part of its investigation into who actually owned and controlled the premises at the time of the alleged seizure.

The Excise Department suspects that Augustine continued to have a connection with the property despite the 2022 auction and has reportedly collected evidence which, according to the investigators, could establish his continued ownership or control. Officials are also examining the role of Lilly Jose in the transaction and her connection with the property.

At the same time, records of the Muttil grama panchayat reportedly continue to carry Augustine's name in connection with the building, including records relating to the payment of building/property tax. The Excise Department is examining whether such records have any bearing on the actual ownership and possession of the property.

The department considers Lilly Jose's statement important to its investigation, particularly in view of the sale certificate showing her as the purchaser of the property. Officials believe that questioning her could help establish the circumstances surrounding the purchase, subsequent possession of the property and the alleged seizure of liquor from the premises.